one reason -- [inaudible] you know, so you know how this images of your life because you know more than one language. it doubles your vocabulary, opens up the different possible faults and gives you access to more literatures and it's just life enhancing. the united states doesn't understand it seems to me that bilingualism is, they think it means spanish children spanish and english speaking children english but it should be the other way around. ..

>> host: and how bicultural they are and how accultureateed they will become. there's a theory i've heard mostly through business folks who are trying to reach this market that, in fact, younger hispanics are interested -- and maybe middle-aged hispanics -- are interested in this retro acculture ration. perhaps you're two or three generations in the united states, and you realize, you know what? i do want to teach my children spanish and cook certain foods or listen to certain types of music. do you see that as something that might perhaps connect a second or third or even fourth or fifth generation his pan ins to their original culture, if you will?

>> guest: yes, i have noticed that amongst hispanic families that i know personally in the united states. and it does impress me. and i think it will, you know, have a countervailing effect on, therefore, perhaps my pessimism about the disappearance of spanish in the united states maybe excessive or i may be anticipating a shorter timetable over which this will happen than will be the case in reality. but, you know, i, i think it's characterized the history of every english-speaking minority that has joined the united states and become part of it. but in no case so far has it restored the use of the language. i mean, i know people who are italian-american, german-american ancestry in this country, they're passionate about these legacies and who

would, you know, even insist that italians and or whatever, and they'll, you know, be very proud of the distinctive cuisines, and they'll take part in parades, and they'll put on traditional dress and special occasions, but they won't speak german or italian. that seems to be a form of cultural retrieval which just hasn't happened so far. in the past of this country. and, you know, i mean, i'm a historian, not a futurologist. you can only make predictions about what's happened on the basis of what's happened before. and the precedents, i don't think, for the future of the united states is a linguistically plural country. if it happens, it will happen for the same sort of reason that pretty much everything happens in the united states, economic reasons. yeah, bottom lines.

be these are are the views of american history of the united states. and if attitudes of spanish change and it does becomes, you know, genuinely another national language of the united states, that will be because of this necessity to converse with and collaborate with other more thans, most of whom speak spanish or portuguese. h isos not the unifying factor, and this is something that you raised in the book as well, and i'd like to close with this: is there an opportunity to have a unified hispanic bloc in the united states? >> guest: yes, there is, but that is only going to be created by people from the outside telling all all these different people of hispanic origins that they form one party. and, you know, i think the republicans have given, you know, an enormous boost, ironically. you know, part of republicans' vision for the future of the country, but they have given a

distinctive hispanic, a tremendous boost by being cruel and unkind about immigration. hispanics have something in common and it has resulted in pretty remarkable levels of any community for a particular political party. but, i mean, in the long run i don't think that single issue is going to be sufficient to sustain mutual identification between all these different spanish, people of hispanic origins who are all very aware of their peculiar heritage and, you know, it's more porn if you're a cue b -- porn if you're a cuban-american -- important if you're a cuban-american than to be or a dominican-american to be dominican and/or colombian.

and i would suspect, therefore, that it's, you know, it's going to become another layer in the layer cake. but it's going to be at a fairly deep level of strategic if i'm allowed to make -- you know, when you get to the near top of the cake, the predominant, you know, kind of coagulant is going to be icing, it's going to be feeling that you're american. >> host: on that note, i want to thank you so much for being with us today, felipe. it was a pleasure talking to you about this and hearing of the trends and i hope you you have h success with the book. >> guest: you're very kind. thank you very much for having me on the show. >> the export import bank hosts its annual conference this week in the nation's capital. today remarks by bank president

fred hochberg and secretary of state john kerry. see it live starting at 8:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> tonight, booktv in prime time features books about the civil rights movement. at 8 p.m., a discussion with todd purdum and juan williams, author of "eyes on the prize." at 9 p.m. eastern, an interview discussing the book on the black panther movement in the '60s. later, taylor branch talks about his book, "t the king years." booktv in prime time all this week at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> what we're seeing right now where we're embedding computational capabilities more and more into our lived environment. some technologists disagree on this, but i personally consider the smartphones that we all consider with us or at least 70% of the american population

carries around with us to be a trademark example of the internet of things. we are becoming human sensors because we're all carrying around an extremely powerful computer in our pocket. but it also takes the form of different sensors that exist in the physical world around us. it takes the form of radio frequency identification readers that we pass underneath when we with access ez-pass on the new jersey turnpike. it takes the form of weather sensors that are all around us. certainly, surveillance and cameras that collect data and then send that somewhere else. this is all part of the internet of things. it's, basically, the embedding of computers into our real world. >> on "after words," the deputy editor the futurist magazine, patrick tucker, on a world that anticipates your every move. and online, our book club selection is bing west's "the wrong war." read the book and join in the discussion. and live sunday, may 4th, look

for our next guest, luis j. rodriguez, former gang member and award-winning poet. be his 2011 release, "it calls you back." booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg took part in a conversation with other female supreme court justices from canada and israel. they share personal stories about what it takes to rise to the top of their field. here's a look. >> judges don't make agendas. >> right. we have agendas. >> we are receiving always. we don't make the controversies that come before us, but we do our best when they are on our plate to decide them. we're not like the political branches that do have an agenda.

>> but the, it's attributed to us, ruth. when we make, i mean, remember the '80s and the east 90s, the discourse was extremely critical of judges who were progressive. and it was critical because they said they have an agenda which is the worst thing you can say about a judge. was what it suggests is that the decision maker has an intellectual basket that will accept the evidence and information and keep the shape of the basket. and judges are supposed to listen and allow the basket to change. so when somebody says you have an agenda, it's a way of dismissing the result and saying, well, what do you expect? but it is absolutely a contradiction to what judges really do which is to actually -- we listen based on who we are. there's no question about that. but that doesn't mean we have an agenda other than trying to get it right every time. >> there's also another restraint on you, rosie, and i

know it is on me, it's that you don't sit alone. you have those other eight. >> i tell people i have eight husbands. [laughter] >> you tell people what? >> eight husbands. i said, imagine making every single major decision every day with eight husbands. [laughter] i don't know about you, but deciding whether to go to a movie is a hard thing with one, but eight in and they didn't choose you, and you didn't choose them. so the collegial aspect is really extraordinary, isn't it? eight forced marriages. [laughter] >> the export/import bank hosts its annual conference this week in the nation's capital. today, remarks by bank president fred hochberg and secretary of state john kerry. see it live starting at 8:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> i remember on saturday the first conversation i had with a group of people at that table

with the two on it. it wasn't about where you're from, what's your school like, but it was about ukraine. it was about politics. it was about our beliefs on education and religion, and i was after that moment i was like, wow, in this week's going to be intense. but it's been with really cool to see the evolution of all of our friendships, all of our bonds, you know, from just talking about politics, to even talking about our experiences, what we've learned, who we've met, and this is an experience i'll never, ever forget. >> i've always kind of been really cynical about it. i've ought thought, you know -- i've always thought that politics is such a caustic environment. but different speakers and people i've met have chipped away at that opinion that's been so ingrained in my head. maybe i do want to make a difference and run for something local and kind of stay local in my community. like president obama said yesterday, he told us, you know, don't get cynical a because this nation doesn't really need any

more sip call people. that's not going to help us relieve the problems that we have. >> one of the things i know that gets brought up about our generation is our social media. we're able to express our opinions very easily. we can just send a tweet about what we think, and i think that starts conversations, and we like to talk a lot, so there's conversation in social media, and we just like to get our opinions out there. >> i think this whole week has been about learning. i come from a small town where it's very politically 40 knowledge nick -- 40 mow generallic, and there's not much chance for people to get their opinion out being ridiculed, and being here with the delegates has given me the opportunity to get other viewpoints. >> high school students from across the country discuss their participation in the u.s. senate youth program, a weeklong

government leadership program held annually in washington sunday night at 8 on c-span's "q and a." >> air force chief of staff general mark welsh spoke yesterday at the national press club. we'll show you as much of this as we can before our live event at 8:45 eastern. ms. . [applause] >> myron, thank you so much for the introduction, and congratulations on your appointment as the president, more importantly, on a remarkable career in your chosen profession. ladies and gentlemen, thanks for letting me be here. this is actually pretty cool. i get to do a lot of stuff in this job that i still feel like a little kid when i do it, and i'm at the national press club. pretty amazing. you guys have kings and queens and heads of state and movie stars and sports icons and kingpins of the financial world, and you picked the wrong morning to come. [laughter] because you get me and j.j. and

sid today. [laughter] let me thank them for being here. j.j. jackson, chief of the air force reserve and sid clark, direct canner of the air national guard, have been tremendous partners, along with general frank brass. one of the things we've worked very hard at is bringing our total force together in way that reflects how well they fight together at the front end of our business. we'll continue that effort. it's just a way we have to do business. but it wouldn't be possible without their help and support, and that's why i asked them to join me today, and we'd be glad to talk about that later if you'd like to. this is a fascinating time to be in the u.s. military, actually. and it's a great time to be an american airman, and it is always a privilege to be the chief of staff of the united states air force no matter what's happening around you. your airmen are incredibly proud of what they do and they're very good at what they do. the biggest frustration is most folks don't know what that is. a good friend of mine who's the director of the joint staff, and

dave actually has an analogy that i will shamelessly steal this morning. i used it at csis in a presentation last month, and i think it describes exactly how the air force is seen. when you walk into a room and you look at the light switch on the wall, unless you're an electrician, you really don't have any idea what's behind the wall, but every time you flip the switch, the light comes on. every single time. that's the way our air force is. we don't do a lot of things that are visible every day. but, for example, we have 600 strategic air lifts -- [inaudible] every single day around the world. that's one every two and a half minutes every hour of every day of the year. we have almost 130,000 airmen who move people and equipment around the world. i have never heard the question asked in washington, d.c. as we look at options and moving patriot batteries to some people or moving a brigade combat team or moving marines to the black sea or whatever we're talking about, the question can we get it there never comes up. never even heard it whispered.

which is an incredible complement to the people who to this business. when people start to think about using a precision-guided weapon, if they're an american military member, they don't worry about whether the satellite is operating well that day. you don't worry about it when you start your car. you don't worry about it when you look at your cell phone to see what the time is exactly from a signal you're getting from space. we operate eight satellite congresslations and 77 satellites. they support military operations all over the world. wetwo with-thirds of the nations nuclear triad sitting alert right now. it's the wallpaper of national security strategy. has been for a long, long time along the with the navy's nuclear submarine fleet. they don't ask for a lot of recognition, but they do the job well. they're getting anticipation right now, we can talk about that as well if you like. when we decide to send an

american b-1 from the u.s. to libya and drop 16 joint direct attack munitions onto every shelter on an airfield in one as and then land somewhere on the other side of the globe, refuel, rearm and hit another base coming back home, nobody really asks how do you do that. that question doesn't come up. when we decide to send a b-2 launching from the american midwest to be a show of force in south korea, nobody really asks how that comes together. but if you think about it for a second, it's pretty spectacular. think about the intelligence, the air refueling requirement, the command and control requirement. how does all this happen? who's doing that? they're just kind of in the background making things happen every sickle day -- single day. there's a great golf commercial where the tag line is these guys are good. you've probably seen that. so are my guys. they're incredibly good. luckily, our combatant commanders know that too, and so the demand for what the air force provides is on the rise.

unfortunately, the supply's going in the other direction. that's what we're facing with the sequester-level budgets we're looking at in the future. as myron mentioned, every recommendation we're making these days does hurt. it's taking capability or capacity away from combatant commanders, things that they believe they need and things we would like to provide but just won't be able to in the future because we have to be part of the solution to the nation for the budget deficit. we got that. and we're figuring out how to wisely move forward, keeping our air force balanced as we downsize over time. we're reducing capability in every one of our core missionaries. every single one of them. we're cutting our modernization programs by 50%. we're protecting a couple of key programs that we think we have to recapitalize, the f-35 and the long range strike bomber for operational reasons so that we have a viable air force ten years from now which is also part of our job, not just being ready to operate today. we're doing everything we can to

main tape that balance between -- maintain that balance. against threats that are clearly getting more capable in some areas and getting more complicated in others. even with the balanced budget agreement, it's important to are remember that the reason this seems so dramatic to people is that three years ago in fy-12 if i just pick a year out, the projected budget for fy-15 for the air force was $20 billion higher than we actually have this our budget. that's about 20% of our overall budget. and so changing from a plan even three years ago that had projected funding and training and force structure at that level to one that is going to be 20 billion a year lower from here forward is a senate adjustment. significant adjustment. that's why the changes seem so dramatic. but if they're not done, it'll get worse in the future. it's hard to make a $20 billion reduction per year without making some significant change. and so trimming around the edges as we put together our budget proposal just wasn't going to

work. we had to look at some pretty dramatic things. myron mentioned the a-10 fleet. one of those was cutting aircraft can. let me tell you why we ultimately decided to recommend that fleet. the decision has come under fire from several sectors, but there's a logical reason we got to that point. let me briefly explain it to you. we have five missionaries in our air force, just five. we've done the same five core missions since 1947 when we became an independent service. we've added space superiority, that's the only knew thing. -- new thing. the way we do these missions has changed. the domains have changed. we do air space and cyber domains now, but we do the same five missions. air and space superiority, global strike, isr, airlift and command and control. that's it. we're not that complicated. so in air and space superiority, we are taking cuts. but a few years back we capped our f-22, the hinge pinch of the air superiority for the united

states of america. air superiority is foundational to the way we fight wars as an american military. without it, you can't maneuver on the ground, you can't maneuver at sea. you have to have it. and all of our war fighters know that. so only one service can provide a theater's worth of air superiority. to only -- only one has the command and control capability to do this. it meant we had to support them with some other kind of airplane to provide air superior the city, and until the f-5 is onboard, it's the f-15c. we are cutting f-15s out of our fleet this year, but we can't eliminate the entire fleet of aircraft or do the air superiority mission, and our combatant commanders won't accept that. so cuts, but you can't cut a fleet there. you get rid of all the back supply channels, all those things that cost a whole lot of money. so maybe it's isr that we could eliminate fleets of airplanes

with, because we have fleets there too. but if you ask the combatant commanders their number one short fall is isr capability. we're cutting every mission area, but they would not support us cutting any more than we already have projected. so maybe we could cut our air lift fleets. we talked about that. i talked to ray eau odierno and said can we cut our airlift fleet to kind of align with that force size for you? and he said we're going to be smaller, we need to be more flexible, no, i wouldn't support that. okay. so we can't cut the airlift fleet. what about the tanker fleet? we looked at that. we looked at cutting the kc-10 fleet, the effect that that would have on the operations that we face. we looked at cutting an equivalent amount of money from the kc-135 fleet, it would take about three times as many as the savings, as the number of kc-10s to get the same savings

because you can't get rid of the 40 gist call infrastructure if you don't take the whole fleet. and the analysis showed us you could get rid of the kc-10 fleet, it would be less impactful because if you take three timeses as many kc-135s, you flat can't do the job anymore. we finally decided the impact of that was just too big on all the services and the combatant commanders compared to other option toes that we looked at. so airlift wasn't a good place to go. so command and control, maybe we can cut systems there. the only service that can do command and control on a theater scale is the air force. missile defense, isr activity, whatever it might be, nobody supports cutting that. so we're down to the strike platforms. we don't control the policy on the nuclear business with, so going after nuclear platforms is not part of our purview. we need about 80-100 bombers to do nuclear deterrence and to do any predictable, expected campaign be kind of flying with a bomber fleet in a large

conflict, which i hope we never have to do. but if we have one, you better have 80-100 bombers or you can't do them both. that's about what we have today. they're aging, but we can't go smaller. our number of squadrons is below our standing requirement today. so now you go into the tactical strike forms, the b-1, the f-16. we looked at the a-10 fleet because we can save $4.2 billion birdie vesting the a-10 fleet. be we save $4.2 billion, we also looked at saving $4.2 billion by cutting f-16s ott -- out of the fleet. we could cut the f-15 fleet, we could cut the entire b-1 fleet, push. f-35s outside the future years defense plan and buy them later. but we could do that. and we could just ground a whole bunch of squadrons today and make it look like last year with airplanes parked and nobody flying them. so we looked at all those

options, we took one each independently and ran them through a detailed operational analysis with the tools we use in the department of defense against the standard dod scenarios, and we came very clearly to the conclusion that of all those horrible option, the least operationally impactful was to divest the a-10 fleet. that's how we got there. it's not emotional. it's logical, it's analytical. it makes sense from a military perspective if you have to make these kind of cuts. nobody likes it. not me, nobody. but we've also worked very hard as part of that to put together transition plans for the units that are in those airplanes now. one of the things that sid and j.j. and i spend a lot of time on in our planning routinely and that these guys spent a ton of time on in this budget was looking at those guard and reserve units, is there a plan where we can move other hardware into reserve component to transition those units and the missions that are viable for the long term?

because that's what we owe our reserve component. if we don't divest from those units, the plan will come unraveled. we will not have force structure at the right time to migrate into those units, and we'll start the planning over again. so everything in this swire chain of events -- entire chain of events is hard. the balance is pretty delicate. the cuts are real. the issues are serious, and they deserve serious consideration. so let me stop there, and i'll be glad to talk to you about any of those things. i'll be glad to talk to you about the budget further, about the total force integration. we can talk about sexual assault. we can talk about anything you'd like to talk about, and if i need help, i'll call on sid and j.j. who are smarter and much better looking. thank you again for the opportunity to be here. [applause] >> the air force is looking for a guiding concept to build and

modernize around, and you've mentioned recently you believe the u.s. air force should focus on strategic agility. in practical terms, what does this term mean, and how difficult is it to implement in this budget climate? >> thanks, myron. the concept's actually pretty simple, it's just hard to get there. by strategic agility, i'm referring to agility of everything from thought to training to education to the decision processes to acquisition ask to operational activity -- and to operational activity. we have to change the way a little bit that we do everything in order to get to this point, and i think it's a long-term joinny. all -- journey. all of you know we have a lot of processes inside the government that none of us would consider agile. but if we try and solve this in a budget cycle, we can't do it. that's the difference. we really have to start by making a concerted effort to look at the long term as the, for the solution. we're trying to change the way

we do strategic planning in the air force. we're standing up a strategic planning organization that will focus on strategic planning and on long-range resource planning. the idea is that we will have a living, priesting strategy document -- breathing strategy document. the first one is the call to the future. it's the priorities for science and technology. for research and development, for development of new concepts, for human capital development, for i new approaches to training and educating our people. there's also a 20-year piece of this strategy which is a master plan, a single air force master plan. right now we have 12 aligned under core function leads. the problem with that is you end up with 12 different plans for the air force. they compete in lots of ways both overt and covert, and we need to bring that together into a single master plan where we can make the prioritization decisions as an institution that allow us to be realistic about funding going forward. that master plan will have a 20-year forward look, it'll be bounded by projections of

resources. so if we expect the resources will be at this line, we are not going to build into the plan anything that will push us above that funding line. and if we add something in that drives us above the line, we take something out that keeps it balanced x. the third piece will be a ten-year balanced budget. we're going to balance it every year. .. on your part to try to keep at least a few of these aircraft

around for specific close air support missions overseas? >> yes. we look at every option. here's the problem. i mentioned you to make big savings unless you cut fully. if we took, for example, the a-10s in the last use, put new wings on the airplane as part of the continuation of the aircraft, if we kept those aircraft, we would save $1 billion. because as all the infrastructure that drives the because pics a difference between 1,000,000,004.2 billion is significant. that pays for half hour flying our program each year, for example. we just decided not to do that because we can't find billions of savings in many places in this budget. this is not about the a-10 not being a great airplane, not doing great work. it's about where can we take operational risk going forward, where can we create savings and how can we start transitioning the air force into thinking about the threat and the environment we will have to

operate in 10 years from now. the a-10 will not be part of the solution and a high threat environment. what the budget is doing, we are cutting capability in every nation area, it's eliminating our ability to of airplanes, systems, people only operate in a single environment. >> if the air force is prevented from cutting the a-10 what are its second and third options to achieve the same savings the? >> any of the options i mentioned before that happen. people are suggesting that, for example, we could cut 363 f-16s but if we did that the other mission of the air force is accountable for, the major missions we do in the theater of operations and god forbid a big conflict would be almost impossible to achieve because the a-10 can't do those missions. the f-16, f-15, the ones can do close air support. they have been doing it extensively alongside the a-10 and afghanistan and iraq for the

last eight to 10 years, thousands and thousands of sorties. very successful sorties. the problem the a-10 can't do the job those applets can do in the rest of the battlefield. we save lives on the battlefield as a an air force by eliminating the enemy's will to continue the fight, by destroying the command pivotal networks, eliminating the ability to reinforce the fight on the front line. by keeping the reserve forces are moving forward and rejoin. by limiting the second operational reserve so they never engage u.s. or coalition troops on the ground. ground. that's the air force is a big lives on the battlefield. we go by providing air superiority which gives her forces freedom to maneuver and freedom from attack. that's wha what air force is doy significant way to shape the battlefield. we also do close air support. we have a number of airplanes again and to perform close air support very, very well. >> this year's fiscal 2015 budget, much like last year's,

continues an interesting trend as far as aircraft procurement in the department of defense. the navy is by more aircraft than the u.s. air force and the army isn't far behind. the air force is retiring its force structure and not buying aircraft, while planning to combat sequester related cuts, what do you see to the air men who joined the air force to fly aircraft? is help on the way? >> you make it sound as if the navy and army are expanding. i don't think that's the case the the. enemy to join the air force joined it because, for lots of reasons initially. they find when they come in the door even if it wasn't the pride that attracted them, they get very proud of who they are. they get very proud of what they do and how will they do it. they get proud of the people they stand beside just like the folks in our other services. i have a son who is a marine infantry officer. use the same way. he could not be prouder to come to work everyday and work with

the people he gets to work with everyday. that's what are adamant are looking for. they're looking for the opportunity to be good at what they do. that's the one thing that will cause them to walk away. one of the things we're trying to do in the air force is we are trying to balance our force at a size where we can afford to train and operate it. we didn't use the law that was passed, but it's a law. and in 60 we will return to sequester levels of funding according to the law. if that happens we cannot operate and train our air force emphasized we are at now. we have got to downsize. our people understand that although it's tough on them. it's a horrible environment to be operating in worrying about will be the next year, who will not be the next you. we're trying to do force management this year so we can reduce the size as quickly as we can and get past this, in the next 12 to 15 months and whoever is an air force at the appointed time, we start to focus on the future. that's the approach we're trying to take, myron.

>> in the longer-term, the air force is buying a new tanker and procuring a new bomber in the coming years. it also wants to step up f-35 recapitalization in the coming years by many times they face right. and also move to procure a new jstars replacement by the end of the decade. that is an unprecedented modernization card i in the history of the service. not taking into account the large and growing expenditures related to space. how will the service manage all of this? >> well, first we have to manage it realistically. one of the keys for strategic agility is taking an honest look in the mayor routinely and making sure you can afford what you're planning to do. we think the budget we submitted this year is a step toward managing this in a way that is fiscally responsible over time not just the next year or five years. all the things you mention are in the current plan. we are not asking for new money. were not trying to raise the budget line to get tickets in

the plan even at these reduced levels. what it means though is in our military judgment those other things we need to be successful, not just today but 10 years from now, against the threat as we see it. will be can do is maintain everything else that we would like to keep going and still be able to make that transition. that's the dilemma we are facing. you want a ready force to be or do you want to read and modern force tomorrow? that's the tightrope we are walking. >> general welsh, you've mentioned a few times the u.s. air force should begin looking at what it wants in a six generation fighter. as in the successor to the f-22. what are the attributes of an aircraft like this? is it really fair to call such an air craft a fighter, when it will likely be just as vital as an isr and network asset beyond just a straightforward air superiority fighter?

>> maybe not, myron. i don't even know there's an airplane. what we have to start looking at is what is air superiority look like 30 years from now. let's go back to the strategic planning document and the call to the future. i don't know what it looks like but we better start thinking about it because it takes a long time to deliver because we don't have that strategic agility and acquisitions before. not just in the air force but in our government. we've got to start figuring out what is air superiority mean because it will be required 30 years from now. air force will still be responsible for performing the mission and provide it for our combatant commanders. it we don't start thinking about this at this point in time i think we are being irresponsible but i wouldn't try to characterize it or describe it. i have no idea what is going to look like, what it even is, whether it flies or whether it's a combination of things. just don't know. >> drones are an increasing part of the air force's mission. yet they are very controversial. what would you say to critics

who argue that drones depersonalize killing? >> first of all, remotely-piloted aircraft that we fly, onto to the party line, jerry to lead the opportunity been to this. we don't call them drones. with an awful lot of people behind these things and people who operate them are proud of what they do. we don't have anything flying around deciding to fire weapons or drop weapons on something as a hub of metal doing its thing. that's just not what happens. we have people in the loop on every level of the process flying remotely-piloted aircraft. about 97, 90% of what we do on remotely-piloted aircraft, maybe even higher is purely intelligence collection. our rpa fleet is a huge percentage. it's less than 10% of our aircraft today. it's not going to dramatically change in the near future. there are an awful lot of things you can't replace about the

sensor myron carries on his shoulders but we don't have the platform yet the conflict into a battle space and determine in about two seconds what his brain tells him is going on in the arena. until we have that sensor we will always have men and women in the battle space. and so we should look at how do we best use of unmanned capability in ways where unmanned capability has the most effect. if you plan to collect intelligence over a particular area for a long periods of time, then don't limit yourself on the human body in a cockpit. that's where remotely-piloted aircraft have been used extensively up to this point. if you want things track 24 hours a day, then remotely-piloted aircraft works well for you but if you want to make quick decisions based on a picture of the battlefield, it's the wrong type of technology just today. if you want to carry nuclear weapons, if you want to move your families around, i'm not sure i'm ready for a remotely-piloted aircraft to do that yet. so the idea is what does the technology allow you to do and then what should you do. that's the debate we have

internally on remotely-piloted aircraft. should they get bigger, smaller? what will technology and resources allow? what will help inform the? we will probably move more freight and the united states of america not in the military side of the house but on the commercial side of the house. when we do that the ability to move things with remotely-piloted aircraft will start to explode. that will change the game in the rpa business. right now we still can't find multiple rpa's in the same airspace under faa control. not just in the u.s. but also national airspace control another nation. don't know how to track and manage them, organize them because they're all being operate individually by people in different locations. the faa is working to do that today in multiple locations around the united states. this industry is going to grow. as the industry grows it's important for the air force to be at the leading edge of technology. that's what we do. we are founded on technology. we have people who are drawn to it. they employ it incredibly well and their unbelievably

innovative with it so that's what interests us mostly about the remotely-piloted aircraft future. >> in the light of the recent gao report on the mental health of drone operators, who are overworked and have little access to psychologists, according to the report, how does the u.s. air force view the recommendations and how will they be implemented? >> the gao report actually, it's a great read because it describes, gives you a good picture of the committee. i think they cover 2006-2012. so the information is a little bit dated. there've been some changes made during that timeframe that are having an impact now. if you look at the results of some of the focus groups that are counted you see some of the focus groups tell you that don't believe there is a problem today. they do have access to medical care and counselors, all that has changed as a result of the effort we've been making over the last four or five years. i think we're just progressing. this career field is new.

we are at the right of life stage of remotely-piloted aircraft. were just getting started. the rapid, rapid expansion between 2006 and today in the the remotely-piloted aircraft business as a result of the conflicts in iraq and afghanistan has been dramatic. we didn't have a community of people who were up in operating and fully mature in some of the system and which is transition to rpa. we build this community on-the-fly. in 2008 we had a believe there were 21 orbits of these rpa's and people associate with them now we're approaching a new target of 65. we hope to make that 55 and reinvest in other areas of the fleet. that's the way we've been growing. that is a huge investment of people and of cash. to try to meet the needs in iraq and afghanistan. and the needs of the counterterrorism conflict around the world. all that happened with a group of people who were stretched --

stressed to begin with. they were conducting combat operations. the was a lot of pressure on this community of it to make sure we're treating them the right way from here forward to think there's lots of good lessons learned in the gao report. >> why did the united states wait for so long to develop technology for a next-generation rocket engine for launched? >> i think when we purchase of the engines we're currently using for every launch which is the real issue today, the russian designed and built engine, i think it was a great product. it was cost savings. it was an efficiency we could by purchasing en masse and they've been very successful. we can't afford to forget that. we just hit 100 straight national security space launches which is a spectacular success story. one of the things we have to be very careful about any decisions in the space launch turbine is first do no harm. and make sure as we transition we transition in a smart,

meaningful, dedicated detailed way. i think that clearly it's a good time to look at what is the future of heavy space launch and propulsion. we support fully the assessment that we are undergoing right now to try to determine the best way forward for that. i think the air force and the nation will be well served by this. >> with the nasa's loss of the shuttle program, how does america's small role in space affect the u.s. air force and its mission? >> our mission has been dramatically affected by the shuttle, nasa losing its shuttle mission. the things we do through space have not changed dramatically over the last 10 years. we had just gotten better at it. we've got a little more technically proficient or expanding our knowledge of the actual environment and looking at the missions required for the future. there is a change in technology in space that's going on but there's a change in capability

by nations around the world and it's going to be very important for the united states and the united states air force as part oof the to keep up with that technology growth how it is possible get ahead of the. as opposed to reacting to something that other nations do in space routine with new technology development, under capabilities that are there. we should be trying to drive the activity. instead of just being and responsive mode and that's what we've been trying to do. the cost of platforms that operate in space are growing just like costs of platforms that operate on seat and in the air and went to check it that into looking into new ways to do business. the way we been doing it is not going to continue to be the right way. and so this idea of miniaturized sensors, smaller packages moving into space, different types of orbits, different approaches whether it's this aggregation or riding as passengers on commercial platforms, whatever it might be we've got to be strategically agile enough to think of the ways at getting out

of no problem. there are problem. there are somethings we demand full security, full confidentiality, the ability to operate 100% of the time no matter what happens but that doesn't have to be everything every day. and costs will drive us out of that mindset if nothing else does so we need to get moving in a direction. i think our folks are doing that now. >> lieutenant general johnson of the air force academy has had to make elimination of about 10 majors in response to the cuts that were mandated under the new fiscal year '15 budget cuts. how do you feel about this heavy-duty impact to the academy's mission? is it possible for the endowment considerable underwritten fund to help offset some of his academic and outside cutting mandated by the defense budget? >> wanted general johnson has done since she arrived at the cabin is she's taken a hard look at the air force academy at what product it is decided to

produce. we helped her buy kind of outlining the requirement for her. what do we expect a graduate at the academy to be and to be able to do. she has been started an effort to she's calling the essence of the air force academy, and the idea is determine exactly what is it that we have to do incredible well at the academy to produce that graduate. some of the major got your talking about our and effort within the academy to refocus their priorities and to focus resources on the things that mean the most in terms of that essence. the specific cuts were not directed by the air force or anyone else, and, in fact, michelle knows there were resources available to help her if she needed them but she's trying to measure own funds and be part of the solution as well which she believes is part of irresponsibility as one of our commanders. i completely agree with her. at every level people are making these decisions. this is sequestration. we need to get used to it. >> general welsh, you are one of

only a couple of chiefs who graduated from the air force academy in colorado springs. how has that affected your thoughts toward the problem of sexual harassment the academy has been experiencing, and how do you feel they're progressing towards towards getting with this problem once and for all? >> i am a graduate of the academy, a proud graduate of the academy but my thoughts on sexual harassment were really formed by growing up as the son of the world's greatest mother, and a brother to five incredible sisters. they pretty much shaped my moral fabric on issues related to respect between the sexes at a very young age. my family is a family because of my parents that shows respect for each other all the time. we always have. we love each other. we respect each other, and the idea that you would not act that way to people of another gender is just beyond my comprehension, quite frankly. so that has formed my views on this much more than being at the

air force academy. my experience at air force academy was without women in the actual, we didn't have women when i attended, and so i have worked there since but i was not a cadet in that environment. but whether it's at the air force academy or an air force wing, or in the town outside the front gate, this is unacceptable behavior, there you do. the difference in the last couple of years in the air force in the discussion on this topic is palpable. if you haven't visited an air force wing, talked to the people on the -- >> we will leave this event from the national press club to go live to the export-import bank in washington, d.c. they're hosting their annual conference this week. thank president fred hochberg will kick off a conference attended by business and government leaders who hear about opportunities and challenges for american companies. >> sell more goods made in america and the rest of the world than ever before. those four straight years of record exports support over 11 million jobs here in the united states.

the ex-im bank has played a big role in that. thanks to come or american companies are competing in the global marketplace. they're meeting the needs of more customers, creating new jobs and promoting american innovation and no. and they're helping to convince more global companies to invest in higher here in america which is good for them and good for us. because it always pays to bet on america. i just want to thank you for helping build a lasting foundation for our future growth, create more good jobs here at home, and give more onto printers their shot at the american dream. socha chairman harkin berg and everyone at the ex-im bank, congratulations on eight years to keep up the great work and have a wonderful conference. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome chairman and president of the export-import bank of the

united states, fred hochberg. [applause] >> good morning. good morning and welcome to the 2014 export-import bank annual conference. i've had the opportunity to welcome you here for five years running, and i couldn't be more excited about today's program and the direction that xm is headed. i'm particularly delighted to be welcoming secretary of state john kerry, who will be joining us at lunch today. i want to begin today by talking about money. not what's inside this bag. i want to talk to you about the dollar sign itself. everybody in this room knows what this symbol means, but i'm willing to bet not many of you know where it came from.

historians differ on the exact source of the dollar sign, but the theory that i like best traces it back to the strait of gibraltar. long before columbus and others set sail for the new world, legend held that on each side of the strait of gibraltar was a pillar. and the story goes that on those pillars was an inscription meant to warn sailors who tried to venture out west, and the inscription said nec plus ultra. translated from the latin, it means nothing further beyond. for centuries, most europeans believe that there was nothing out there beyond the waters edge. of course, all that changed when columbus reached the americas, on what i would call europe's first trade mission.

after word got out of the new discovery, king charles and agreed they the old saying, nec plus ultra, would be changed to simply plus ultra, further beyond. those pillars became some of the world's most enduring symbols. a symbol but still reminds us that opportunity and prosperity aren't confined within our own borders. they can be found further beyond, and that's exactly what i want to talk to you about today. at acxiom, we want to be the wind in your sails, equipping you with tools you need to venture out to new frontiers. it wasn't so long ago that american business people, myself included, only turned exports after u.s. markets were exhausted. many entrepreneurs were like those 15th century europeans. they didn't see a lot of value beyond their own shores.

and this is what explores do. it's not really great for discovering new markets, but it does let me see who is already on twitter during the early part in the conference. back in the 1950s, u.s. exports made up about 40 -- 4% of gdp. today that number has more than tripled. as the world continues to globalize, exports are an increasingly vital to economic success and job growth. since president obama announced a national export initiative on this very stage back in 2010, we have made historic progress. just last year, 16 states set new records for export sales, and america set a new export record for the fourth straight year.

america has added 9 million private sector jobs since 2010. and at the rate we're going, april is poised to be the 50th straight months of u.s. job growth. the momentum is only going to grow stronger in the years ahead. now, despite the tremendous progress, we still have more to do if we want to match our overseas competitors. u.s. exports have -- or nearly 14% of gdp, but germany and korea's exports represent more than half of their gdp. and, in fact, kerry is export financing amounts to $100 billion. that is nearly four times what america supports for an economy less than one-tenth our size. and they are not alone. when i travel around the world i see government after government looking to strengthen their economies through exports.

everyone is putting their foot on the gas trying to win the race for leadership in the global marketplace. last year we pulled ahead of germany to become the world's number two exporter. we are right behind china. and ezra i'm concerned, there's no reason we can't top them. it was only a dozen years ago that we with the number one exporter in the entire world. we can get there again. so this is the time to drive forward that's especially true now that there's going to be more than a billion people who are poised to join the middle class within the next five years alone. demand is going to skyrocket for transportation, infrastructure, power, and high-tech services, and every other consumer and capital goods you can imagine. the countries that seize these opportunities won't just be benefiting the nation's the export to.

they were generating new jobs and a stronger economy back home as well. so we know the ground is fertile. we know the opportunities are out there. but we also know that foreign competition has never been more intense. if you're an american exporter and you feel like you're wearing a big target, guess what, you're not paranoid. everybody wants to top the united states. so they're pulling out all of the stops to win trade deals and boost exports. sometimes, for countries like china and russia, 19 evening throwing out the rulebook. u.s. businesses don't have that luxury. you play by the rules. so on and an even playing field facing relentless competition, how can america succeed on the global stage? first and most importantly, by

continuing to ensure that the u.s. produces the highest quality, most innovative goods and services in the entire world. make no mistake, america's success begins with you. the second way we can't ensure success is by leveling the global playing field so they use goods have an opportunity to succeed on their own merits. your focus should be on coming up with the next breakthrough product working change idea, not on financing. you may lose out to a competitor on pricing or scheduling, but you shouldn't lose out just because you were steamrolled on financing by an aggressive foreign government. and at ex-im, that's what we can mean. by breaking down barriers. we level the playing field for american businesses. and we deliver a good night's sleep to entrepreneurs who might otherwise be worried whether they will get paid for overseas

sales. we've been coming through on that promise for 80 years now. .. for more than a decade his business struggled to stay

afloat due to a sluggish domestic market. then his team came up with an idea for a new technology, one that could reinvent the way power plants were clean, tested and certified. with its innovative approach, boyle now had the ability to service power plants in a way that dramatically reduced cost, hazardous waste and carbon emissions. they invent ad ground-breaking technology but they lacked customers. that all changed when mike discovered ex-im credit support could help him reach new markets. armed with competitive financing, mike's team has taken on more than 400 projects in 28 countries of the they have doubled their revenue twice in six years. and since partnering with ex-im, they have been able to grow from about a dozen employees to more than 50 today.

10 years ago exports accounted for about 5% of sales. today they top 90%. with ex-im support mike you now has the confidence to venture to new markets, knowing not only does he have the highest quality services, he has the most reliable financing to back it up. mike went further beyond. i'm glad mike could join us today. mike, could you please stand and let's give him a round of plus plus -- applause. [applause] as exports grow increasingly central to our economic success, america's future will depend more and more on companies like mike's. and that means the export-import bank will be more vital to the american economy than ever before. when we empower businesses to reach new markets and win deals,

the ripples are felt in cities and towns across our country. the 40 jobs and 40 jobs that mike added after partnering with ex-im is not just a statistic. that is 40 families in new hampshire and a dozen other states who gained a little more security. that is 40 families where planning for the future is an opportunity to savor instead of a burden to dread. exports breathe new life into businesses, they transform whole communities through job growth. and that's what ex-im delivers, global tools that reap lasting local benefits. that's especially true when it comes to our work with small businesses. last year we set a record of small business transactions we authorized at ex-im.

nearly 90% of authorizations directly served small business, another historic high. any access to global markets is empowers small companies to become big companies. one of those is satech tomorrow you will hear from elon musk, their visionary ceo. like many companies it was born in a garage in 2002. eight years ago they had 200 employees. they were a small business with some truly innovative ideas. but with limited financing opportunities they faced serious competition from france, from russia, and from china. now financing rockets is a complicated business. it may not be rocket science but it is still complicated. so we partnered with spacex to overcome those obstacles.

they got the support they needed to compete on a level playing field and they won. today those innovative ideas have turned into reality and nearly 4,000 people are part of the space x team. their supply chain is here in america. their manufacturing is here in america. their launches is here in america. and those 4,000 jobs, here in america. i think that deserves a round of applause. [applause] the growth of spacex from an ambitious small business to a global leader is an inspiring story and at ex-im it is the type of story we want to make possible for all of our customers. if your ideas are bound by gravity, then your sales should not be bound by financing. so,. but as it turns out not everyone

understands the value that ex-im provides. that is despite our 80-year track record. despite supporting more than a million u.s. jobs over the last four years. despite the fact that we run a surplus for the american taxpayers. despite the fact that we've done more to propel thousands of businesses to new heights of global success. maybe those critics just aren't talking to entrepreneurs like mike boyle, who have added or more jobs because of ex-im's support. maybe they don't realize other countries salivate at the idea of a world without ex-im. let me tell you if we were to shut down, russia, china, other countries would gladly 1234567 up the opportunities that america would be forefitting. whatever the reason, there are few folks out there that still need some convincing. this fall our charter is set to expire. unless congress acts we'll be

forced to close our doors on october 1st and all of the momentum we have built up as an engine for u.s. exports and job growth these last '80 years will -- 80 years will grind to a halt. reauthorizing the bank never used to be a political issue and it shouldn't be today. supporting american job growth shouldn't be controversial. keeping america competitive in the global economy shouldn't be controversial and that after all is what we do. and a economist of every political stripe will tell you the same thing. yet there's a vocal minority out there who can't stomach the fact that the thought of the government might have a role to play in empowering u.s. businesses to compete across the globe. everybody's entitled to their theories and dogmas but theories, they don't pay the bills. business owners like you live in

the real world and to you those theories can trigger those harmful repercussions. let me tell you about one other person. steve wil-brn steve is veteran after small renewable energy company that created 165 jobs in california and suppliers in seven other states since he began partnering with ex-im. two weeks ago steve was stunned to hear he lost a $57 million order in the philippines. he was told he was the preferred supplier. he thought he had it in the bag. but he lost out because his competitor from south korea convinced the buyer that steve's business might not have the financing to get it done. they pointed to the debates surrounding ex-im's reauthorization and they said, there is too much uncertainty there. you can't rely on america. can't rely on america? that is just wrong!

we should not accept that and we do not have to. this isn't speculation. this is a real company losing real business and sacrificing real american jobs because of political games being played here in washington. so i don't think our critics were talking to steve. i don't think they were talking to mike or elon musk. i don't think they have been talking to you or the hundreds of other entrepreneurs i have met with on the road across this country and i don't think they have been talking to the millions of americans who are earning a living through export bank jobs because if they did, they would know that ex-im has a clear role to play in strengthening our economy. we can not let rigid ideology -- ideology, stand in the way of american jobs and american leadership. we simply can't afford it. this is the time to add your voice to this critical conversation. the president stands strongly behind u.s. entrepreneurs and their workers, he asks for ex-im

to be reauthorized for five years and increase our lending cap to $160 billion. those five years would deliver confidence to countless americans, exporters and their workers and certainties to their buyers overseas. everyone is counting on congress to get this done and done on time. china is buying u.s. satellites. america now builds and exports more hondas than we import from japan. all across this country, innovative entrepreneurs are teaming with ex-im to get an edge on their foreign competition and create new jobs. we can not pull the rug out from under them. we can not play political games with these american jobs. these jobs drive our economy, and they drive us at ex-im. we've got a team of 400 people with the singular focus.

getting deals done so america can add jobs. actually, we're up to 401. thanks to a confirmation two weeks ago, we're thrilled to welcome back our vice-chair, wanda feldman. [applause] we're sleek, we're nimble, we're entrepreneurial-minded and we defy every tired stereotype about federal agencies. we deliver government at the speed of business. the reason for that is simple. we live in the world of business. we have spent 80 years cultivating a record of success in this global business community. and despite that success, we're not resting on our laurels. we're constantly seeking out new ways to improve. that's why we're cutting red tape and rolling out new tools that exporters can use to connect with us and their customers more efficiently. and it is why we always take a

responsible approach to risk. last year we supported 205,000 u.s. jobs. we empowered more than 3,000 small businesses to reach out further beyond our shores. we engaged with more u.s. companies than ever before, all while maintaining an historically low default rate of less than 1/4 of 1:00 percent. around which did this at no cost to the u.s. taxpayer. in fact we ran a surplus of $1,057,000,000. we're so proud of that number, it is the password on my iphone. just don't tell anyone else. the u.s. economy isn't slowing down and we aren't either.

with our support for small business coming in at a record breaking pace so far this year. excuse me. and that's a testament to the entrepreneurs in this room and around this country. and it's a reminder that america still creates the best products born of the best ideas. your ideas can be employed to every corner of the globe. to revolutionize industries, to meet the needs of consumers on every continent and to deliver good jobs to revitalize towns around this country. to ensure that the u.s. becomes the number one exporter again. and home to the strongest, most durable economy in the entire world. you can be a part of that growth if you're willing to venture out. the days of plus ultraare over.

the world is waiting for you. so set a new course for that new market, reach out further beyond beyond and when i do ex-im will continue to stand with you, a pillar of support for innovators and entrepreneurs all across our country. guiding a way toward opportunity, prosperity and and american jobs. thank you and enjoy -- [applause] we will return live to the export-import bank conference at 1:00 eastern by a speech by secretary of state john kerry. the bank focuses on the global business environment and prospects for growth. his speech scheduled for 1:00 p.m. eastern. coming up tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2, booktv in prime time, looks at the civil rights movement. first a discussion with author

of an idea whose time has come, two presidents, two parties and the battle for the civil rights act of 1964. also juan williams, eyes on the prize, america's civil rights years, 1954 to 1969. and at an interview with arm. down to the crossroads. and taylor branch, the king years, on historic moments in the civil rights movement. >> what we're seeing right now, where we're embedding computational capabilities more and more into our lived environment. some technologies disagree on this but i personally consider the smartphones we carry around with us or at least 70% of the american population carries around with us trademark example of internet of things. we're becoming human censors because we're carrying around a extremely powerful computer in our product. it has sense source that exist

in the physical world. radio frequency identification readers we pass underneath when we access easy pass on the new jersey turnpike. it takes the form of weather censors all around us. surveillance and cameras that collect data and send that somewhere else. this is all part of the internet of things. basically embedding of computers into our real world. >> on of a wards, the deputy editor of futurist magazine, patrick tucker, on a world that anticipates your every move. saturday night at 10:00 eastern and sunday night at 9:00. book club selection, bing west's the wrong war. live sunday, may, 4th, look for our next in depth guest. luis j rodriguez, former gang member, author turned poet. he has his book, gang life, always running and 2011 release, it calls you back. booktv, every weekend on c-span2

in international news from the associated press today, standing alongside japanese prime minister, shinzo abe, president obama reaffirmed it will defend the asian ally in confrontation with china over set of disputed islands. he called on both parties to peacefully resolve the long running dispute that heightened tensions between the two countries. the president called for u.s. and japan to resolve agreements over the completion of the trans-pacific partnership. the president is on a four-country swing through the asia-pacific region. from japan, president obama will visit malaysia, korea and the philippines. he is due back in washington next tuesday. to iraq's ambassador to the u.s. gave assessment of potential outcomes of next wednesday's parliament at this elections in iraq. he spoke for the strategic of international studies in washington jed yesterday. this is about 50 minutes.

>> good afternoon. i'm john alderman, the director of the middle east program here a central florida. sis and chair of global strategy. i'm delighted to welcome the ambassador here, the ambassador of iraq to talk about the iraqi elections taking place on april april 30. the ambassador has been here for nine months. prior he sew i have had as japan's ambassador, iraq's ambassador to japan and spent many years in the u.k. studying to be an engoer when it was not safe to be in iraq. speaking of not safe, he is a veteran. he ran the boston marathon two days ago.

he completed the boston marathon two days ago. he will need extra time to make it up the stairs and but he will make it up. we look forward to what you have to say. after ambassador faily talks we'll have a open it up for 15 minutes to answer questions. please welcome, ambassador lukman. faily. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, john, allowing me. i was expecting a access route and thank you for your concentration and for allowing us to have an opportunity to chat among friend about the situation in iraq.

i will talk about 10, 15 minutes, if that is okay, then we'll have the q&a session. i think to start with, let me say that i'm privileged to be here today. first, because of the new, magnificent facility and buildings which csis has acquired and, b, for being talking about iraq, an air area which may have not been talked about for some time in d.c. from the troop withdrawal but i think it is important that we provide some opportunities to discuss among friends as to what all is taking place in iraq and in the region and more importantly whether the united states sees itself as key partner in iraq. within that context, csis has played an important role, and john, thank you for sharing that part of the csis program and,

there i think you guys are in safe hands. so i appreciate that. two days ago, as john mentioned i ran the boston marathon in honor and in support of the victims of terrorism from baghdad to boston. i'm proud that finished and relieved that i finished as well, and i have tremendous respect and appreciation to those who completed the race following last year's tragic terroristic act. iraq's journey from despotism to democracy is also a marathon. only one week from today, april 30th, the iraqi parliamentary elections will mark a milestone on our progress and is an attribute to the

sacrifices of so many iraqis and americans and other countries that helped us to stay on the course of democracy. this will be the fourth parliamentary election since the overthrow of saddam hussein back in 2003. and the first since the u.s. withdrawal of troops at the end of 2011. amidst regional turmoil and stability and sectarian polarization this election offers us the opportunity to consolidate democracy, nuture greater stability and strengthen national unity. democracy means that the people can elect leaders on their own choosing. and in this election iraqis will be able to choose among over 9,000 candidates from 117 political entities, competing for 328 parliamentary seats. let me repeat.

9,000 candidates, 107 blocks, political parties, actually, or entities for and 328 seats. we want the composition of the parliament to represent the diversity of the people. 25% of the seats in parliament are allocated to women. christians and other minorities are guaranteed a certain number of seats in order to ensure their representation in parliament. 650ness of the -- 60% of the 21.5 million eligible voters are expected to turn out, about 60%. out of country voting will take place in 19 nations. here in the united states there will be polling stations in illinois, california, and michigan, texas, arizona, virginia and tennessee. we are doing everything we can to make sure that elections are

free and fair. the process is being administered by the independent electoral commission, an independent bod i of nine commissioners nominated and approved by the parliament. throughout the nation only 15, one, five, candidates have been barred by the commission. there has been much less controversy than in the past elections about excluding candidates and about debaathification. to insure accountability and transparency electronic voting cards are being used in order to eliminate or reduce voting frauds. more than 650 credentials have been issued to foreign monitors. these improvements helped explain why 75% of iraqis are more enthusiastic than any other earlier elections. according to recent polls commissioned by ndi, national

democratic institute. as the campaign enters its closing week americans will find that some, americans would find some features familiar. campaigns are better organized and more professional than in the past. reflecting increasing numbers of iraqis who are online. the candidates are making greater use of social media to reach out to constituents and debate core issues. what are the issues? well, i have here that famous american slogan, it's the economy, stupid. in iraq because the economy is one of four votes, four overriding concerns. security concerns are inescapable. most iraqis believe that security can improve if iraqi forces are better armed and trained.

regarding the economy surprisingly most iraqis don't see the oil sector as the major driver for growth and prosperity. instead, iraqis believe that the two things our nation needs are loans for small businesses and incentives to businesses to hire more employees. rounding out their major concerns iraqis want to rebuild and improve our education and health care systems. now, it is no secret that the elections is being held amidst the rising threat for of terrorism. groups such as so-called that is why it is more important that the elections are held on time. when they participate in the elections, the voters will take the striking, will be striking a powerful blow against the terrorists who are trying to

frighten us away from the polling places in order to prevent the consolidation of democracy in iraq. making no mistake, every vote that is cast will be a vote for hope and not fear. ballots and not bullets and democracy and not dictatorship or divisiveness. when the final results are released, we should expect it to be by end of the may, the democratic process will continue. since it is possible that no single party gains a majority, that the conversations will continue about how the competing parties can come together to form a coalition government. an inclusive government will keep iraq moving forward toward security, stability and democracy. and we want all three. having been ruled by one man and

one party in the saddam regime, iraqis understand that no single faction, whether political, ethnic, regional or religious should control or can control the country. when every segment of society has a voice and no community feels excluded, the new government willgain legitimacy. let me repeat that. when every segment of society has a voice and no community feels excluded, the new government will gain legitimacy. this will deny extremists the political support they need for the violent tactics. inclusiveness is not the only best way to improve democracy, it is also the best and only way to beat terrorism. holding elections and forming a new government, we will be getter able to make progress on the security, political,

economic and diplomatic fronts. in the seven provinces throughout the election campaign there have been no reports in the security incidents. in the western provinces, improved security, improved security will depend on the speed of process of forming the new government. despite the current difficulties in anbar, the government it committed to insuring conditions for a strong voter turnout, displaced persons will be able to cast their votes at secure sites. on the political front, the process of forming a government will be conditional, conditioned on reaching an agreement with key segments of our society. such as the kurds, over the oil revenue and the scope of federalism among other issues. we are hopeful that the, that

following the election the odds will improve for breaking that deadlock. this in turn will pave the way for a greater focus on trade and investment. on the diplomatic front successful elections will improve iraqis standing in the international community. this will enable us to play a greater role in the region as a force for moderation. forming a new government will also re-energize implementation of the strategic agreement which was signed between the united states and iraq. weigh want to build what president obama has called a partnership of equals. as part of that endeavor, our embassy will continue to promote institutions, institutional and exchange between iraqis and

americans. when you visit iraq, you will find an energetic and educated people, committed to building our democracy, securing our country, stablizing our region and rebuilding our roads, highways and airports. restoring our water and electrical systems and improving our education and health care. we will welcome american partnership, friendship and investment. the marathon we're run something long but we are determined to cross the finish line despite the challenges we face. let me thank you for again, for giving me the opportunity to be here and i will be more than happy to take any q&a questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, very much, mr. ambassador. one of the things that is curious, sitting in the united

states watching these elections, is i haven't seen any coverage of alternatives to prime minister ma lackey winning re-election. there doesn't seem to be split school movements seem a reasonable chains winning plurality. could you help us understand, we all know prime minister malaki. he has been there and been to washington. who are some of the other candidates are either likely to be serious contenders or likely to be the ones whose decisions will shape the consequences of the elections? >> okay. in iraq we have somewhat of a strange, or a stranger system of government. we're not like the british system in the sense that a member of parliament will become prime minister, keep their

parliamentary seats and everybody put their candidate forward. that is not the case. we also have the situation in which the dynamic of electing the prime minister is totally different to the dynamic of voting. let me explain it to you. for example, you have the populace elect their representation at parliament. however once the parliamentarians are there, the formation of the government on who is best able to collect the votes of the parliamentarians, not of the people. so you have two different dynamics all together. for the prime ministership to be elected than for the parliamentarian to be elected because the parley men tearian choose the prime minister. you have a culture where there are very few red lines between the blocs as to what to give and not to give which makes it a bit complicated for the formation of

the government, a prolonged process and more importantly candidacy will not be put forward until the election is complete. so you don't a even blocs within the state. other blocs. i'm not aware of anybody putting a name forward and saying this is my candidacy. although they have said, we will secure or we will endeavor to gain prime minister or, lead the government formation. why? because they think that, and they will undermine their candidacy by declaring the name between now and the election. for, primarily for tactical reasons. >> one way to read that, would be, that putting a name forward, if they think that the the prime minister is likely to be reelected, they would rather be in the coalition rather than against it. just remember in the last

election -- >> that was the same, john, that was the same scenario in 2009. >> we had who won more seats than the malaki coalition and running and he clearly didn't win. >> that is my point. the point is that the formation of the government following the election is different than the formation, than electing your representative. >> right. >> because, the challenge each party has, can they gather enough votes, can they entice enough blocs to form the coalition to form the government? that's a key challenge. so -- >> speaking politically, it seems to me that gives tremendous advantage to incumbency because the incumbent prime minister would have tremendous tools at his disposal to build the coalition and the dynamic outside that coalition would be, how do i get in?

rather than how do i assemble a alternative coalition, is that a fair reading -- >> i think you're right to a certain extent. however you also have an issue of, no premiership is secure. so halfway through the last government there was a challenge to the prime minister's, no-confidence vote. so in a way that's what the democratic process is lacking. people have been talking about moving on to a presidential situation and others. i think we're somewhat far from that but also, iraqis have historically used to the presidential system. so you have a cultural issue as well. so that's a problem. let me give you another example. the prime minister's position according to the constitution is head of the cabinet and his vote is one. and he has no authority of, sort

of, laying people off or whether the cabinet members or others. he has to go to the parliament. so his power is different. the actual constitution, the people who voted for the constitution were sure about separating the powers in a way. and this is what is taking place in iraq. so at the cabinet level, the prime minister's vote is one among many. he has no veto. he has no extra weight or anything else. so we go through a new dynamic of iraqi democracy, and this is the key issue which i hope people appreciate. >> the article in the new yorker -- >> which i have yesterday to finish reading. >> let me give away the ending. the ending is this -- >> i saw decks tore before so i know what the ending is. >> the ending that they quote sky saying that one of the tragedies of the iraqi political system is the prime ministership

is too weak. maybe it is too strong? she and ryan crocker are opposed and one of them says the prime ministership is too strong. the other says the primmship is too weak. >> yes. i think, let me, i know both, i've spoken to both extensively about this issue. let me project to you my analysis of it. you have a new political process forming in iraq. you have a new dynamic taking place. you have a culture which is not known to democracy, in the whole region not just in iraq. you have three or four generations of militarization of the society. so there the issue of what power vacuum is very important. the issue of symbolism in iraq is very important. people are saying, no longer there, the president's position,

the presidency should that be a kurd? because the previous president was a kurd? so, the previous president has the aura and personality to bring everybody? that is why it is unique. has to do with the personality impact. in the whole culture the personality is very important. it is not the actual power authority or the legitimacy, it is a personality issue. we're trying to move away from that to safe guard us. this is what i was talking about. >> okay. the sort of clerical establishment in iraq has traditionally urged people to vote and traditionally tried to keep the shia community unified to protect shia interests and it is not been active in this round of elections. in your judgement is that a good thing or a bad thing?

>> they have actually been very active in weekly where they focus primarily on the caliber of the candidacy. their displeasure with services provided to the people. so they have tried to keep away from personalizing the issue because there were labeled that they convened in the first government formations and therefore they thought that they should not take the baggage of that any longer. and they disassociated themselves. historically how the, especially the school of thought, the school of thought have never been involved in politics historically but from the 2003 situation, following the lack of visible leaders, following the die 234578 i canning the challenges of iraq, people asked them to promote that, guardian role.

and which i think they have played a very positive role to be honest. they have been very stable, very mature. totally opposite end of sectarians and totally opposite end of polarizing the society, inclusion. they have been a very good player there. now in this election they have been advocating for participation. they have been advocating for the caliber of their parliamentarians and they have kept away from personalizing the issue which i think is a very nice position, very healthy position for a major religious or, i can't even call it a cultural institution to promote. >> one of the, really troubling things we've seen in iraq in the last, six months is the, seeming, seems as if sectarian violence is ticking up again. thousands of deaths this year.

can you paint a picture of an electoral result which actually helps address some of the sectarian divisions? or is it outside of electoral consequences? is there a way that this election could or is likely to lead to a decrease in sectarian tensions, sectarian violence. >> the election within the democratic systems are the reboot button for resolving and re-energizing society and we're certainly looking for that. nobody is saying that the election is coincidental or marginal. they're saying it is essential for serious discourse, serious discussions, sorry, serious discussion to take place after the election to address core issues which is to do with centralization, decentralization, power of provinces, dispersements of the, budget, oil and so on.

so in that sense a election would provide us, will re-energize in having that discussion, a fresh view with people who are just being given the mandate by the vote of the people. that is one aspect of it. another aspect of it no single party, no single bloc is saying, i need to dominate or which need to have a full authority of formation of the government and at the cabinet level or other representation issues. so everybody is saying we need to get the buy-in of the kurds, we need the buy-in of the sunnis and buy-in of majority of the shia. if you look at buy-in that way. we need the majority of the religious establishment or we need to get moderate voices involved or we need to get the professional involved in the government. so they're talking about for example, the ministers, they're saying we need to move away from leaders of the parties being their own minister. we need to get professional

people involved in it. and we need to bring people in who can work with each other and the prime minister or others need to have a bit more power or say in who on his team should be. we ought to do it with effectiveness and efficiency of governing. these are all food news. the election is only way we're approaching it. i'm not aware of any specific party saying, this has to be us who get 51% plus to form the government. that is not possible. >> although you certainly have sunnis who feel systematically excluded from the process. >> but they have representation in the government. they want to have representation in the cabinet level. so, let me readdress an issue you talked about before, that you just mentioned which i think will address this question as well. what you have now is not the scenario of 2005, 6, 7, or 8. you don't have neighborhood fighting each other. you don't have the ethnic

cleansing you had before. that is no longer the case. you have people who believe in rule of law and people who say this democratic process of iraq is not working for us. this is the key issue. the governor of anbar who stood with the government, who was elected by the way, and he is, as sunni as anybody can be, with the government against others in fallujah and ramadi is a sunni. surely him or others should have a say in governing in the future iraq and we will welcome that. nobody is expecting to dominate or to exclude others. it won't work. the constitution will not allow it. it is actually, not 51%. it is 60% or 63% because of the presidency requires, for the government, for the process to kick in, you need to select a president and that won't take place unless you are more or less confident about the

premiership because of the, a period of 30 days, which means 2/3 of the parliament have to agree. it is not actually 51%. it is 2/3 of the parliament have to agree to kick-start the process again. >> i hope you have an easier time getting two-thirds of your parliament to agree than we have were with our congress. tony put out a report which i'm sure you have at least glanced at which had, i thought some very surprising numbers right up front. said the world bank ranks iraq as having extremely low quality of governance. 178 in the world in accountability. 201st in political stability and violence. 182nd in government effective necessary. 189th in the quality of government regulation and 193rd in the control of corruption. >> he is my friend. >> tony tells it straight. but what, i'm interested in

explanation why that set of numbers is just alongside with the fact that we see a prime minister who most people think is going to be reelected? if there is a democratic process, everybody is looking for inclusion, nobody knows how is it going to come out, how does that set of numbers not create this sense that there is going to be any alternative to the current government rather than despite these numbers, the prime minister seems likely to -- >> these numbers are elite numbers. >> okay. >> democracy is about the populace. the numbers, i'm not disputing them. one thing i notice about the numbers, and i work closely with the world bank and others we

provide access to the allow the numbers to be known. a lot of countries don't even allow that access. our minister of oil announces every month how much oil we sold to whom with transparency. tell me how many other countries do that we don't have an issue of not understanding our weaknesses. we went to the world bank two weeks ago. the governor was there. we said to them, we said give us more numbers, tell us exactly where we get involved because we want to build that country. the prime minister issue is again, to do with, the populace who they think is right personal, cabinets for us. that is one aspect. people have been telling us the last 10 years iraq will be divided and iraq is going through all kind of troubles and i think we have proven them wrong enough for them to start thinking twice about this basic assumption of theirs. that is the second.

third point, i fully agree with these numbers, we tried to do that effectively, we know we have a coalition government which there is no opposition party. technically speaking there is no opposition party in iraq. if you have five or seven parliamentarians, you are eligible for ministerial or at least senior officials at one of the high commissions and others and therefore you're part of that. that's not very effective. i would even call it inefficient but that is the system we have chosen. now we're trying to say okay, let's try to be more effective. and not get everybody, literally everybody, maybe a mart majority of people in. that's what we're trying to do. i suspect is that individual iraqis look at this election as what is the only issue of importance to them? not what are the issues of

importance. one issue which is to do with their nationalism. to do with their identity. to do with their security, for example. and they see in that perspective, they see a prime minister who is focused on security. whether that is right or wrong, that is for historians to tell. what we have to do is expect and accept these democratic processes. it may be painful but i think that is what we're choosing. >> last question, before i go to the audience. as, reading up all the press, on iraq and the elections. why do you think you get such a harsh treatment in the press? why dot people who seem to know iraq seem so disappointed in what is happening?

>> we're still a story in the making as far as democracy is concerned. as far as adhering to institutions is concerned. since 2003, the last constitution we had was in there during the kingdom, 58. after that we had all transitional constitutions. so we are somewhat new for having a new social contract. that is one aspect of it. the other aspect of it is the complexity of iraq and forgive me for saying that. i'm not trying to be elegant or anything. i would say i doubt very much very, a lot of people can understand it. it is complicated because the fault line seam of iraq, sectarianism, nationalism, having two big neighbors who are non-arabs next door, in that aspect of it is it difficult for to understand. you have a pried and key theme

of the people where pride is important. however time is irrelevant. people try to pigeon hole us and say how would the creation of provisional government take nine months? well, it has taken nine months. we don't work based on american's concept of a project which has to do with time, resources and scope. these are the three elements you always have in mind. we don't have those correlations in a similar manner and sometimes we are complicate and sometimes i say we're contradictory to our character because of that complexity. that is why people are somewhat disappointed. block as us as a theme, not as individuals. look at a theme over the last 10 years we have evolved. even those in opposition are saying we need to be, opposite to the political process. we need to be involved in this

democratic process. they're saying that democracy is the only way. nobody is advocating dictatorship any longer. so in that perspective it is an issue. even the prime minister, who had been accused of dictatorship, he is saying i need the provinces to have better dispursement rates for the budget so that we decentralize more. and that called for decentralization came from the governor of patra, or previous governor who was in the same party of the prime minister. you see the complexity of that. that is what most people have to appreciate. it's a long history and with history you get complications. that's where we are. unfortunately we're not binary. >> says the engineer. >> mathematician actually. >> okay. happy to open it up to questions, if you could do us all a favor by introducing yourself and perhaps asking one question so everybody has had a chance to ask.

sir, all the way in the back. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. my name is dan tavana from the project on middle east democracy. to follow up on john's comments with the number that tony korsman cited in his report, i think we saw for the first time, especially in iraq earlier with prime minister ma lackey's visit , an members congress condition on security assistance on progress meeting indicators or responding to them at least. can you tell us a little bit more how the iraqi government viewed that effort and maybe even how it's responded to some those impulses thus far? >> we need to keep talking and communicating with our american friend at all levels. historically majority of the

discussion has been between the white house and the government. embassy's role, primary role, we do less work with the white house and more with congress and others because we think there is an urgent need for it. we have good communication and understanding with the white house. that is what the key issue. that is what the prime minister took back with him. he representatives of the government, need to work with the embassy to strengthen our relationship with the stakeholders of the united states. in the united states the decision-make something not one single party or person and therefore we need to have a institution to institution relationship. based on that, the security issue became clear to all people or parties in the united states. that's the danger of, the safe haven of the anbar province and others, will be a significant risk to the u.s. as much as it is to iraq and regional

instability. in that sense i think congress and senate and the house and the senate could see now that they need to work with us. we may have our own inner politics to discuss with them. fair enough, as friend we're willing to do that to make it conditional i think they know we need urgent assistance and we have been getting that and we're thinking we're on the right track. >> professor, right here on the aisle. that would be you. >> thank you. phoebe marr, independent scholar. thank you very much and congratulations on the marathon. i would like to get back to the election if i may and sort of follow-up on some things you said about the inclusiveness of it. i have not heard much about how the election is going to be run in areas that are presumably

almost at war such asfa lou jaw, ramadi, and so on. and how do you assess, first of all how is the government going to be doing in terms of keeping security there for the election? and how would you assess the ability of the sunni population there to participate in the election? >> that is one of the key challenges, phoebe. we have where does our responsibility and the safety of the people lie? the responsibility of government providing election and opportunity for people to participate, and the safety of the people in not barging in fa lie jaw -- fallujah, or not using indiscriminate, or being gung-ho if is the right word to use in other approach to that.

that is why we're being patient, which is not in our nature by the way. what the military is doing now is not in their nature. there is lot of urging for them to go in especially after the tried to close it down and the issue to the south. so that's challenge for us. so we know there is an obligation of government to provide a safe environment for democratic, to take place for democracy to take place and also, we have an obligation for the security of the country as well. that is the key challenge we have been trying to do. what we've been trying to do, those who are displaced in karbala and diala provinces and others, there are quite significant numbers, for them to be able to vote. for representatives of the ramadi province. so if you have in karbala, you can vote fora mahdi, that is the

idea, each province votes for their own representatives. so that is one aspect. the cards, giving smart cards or electronic cards, not smart cards, called electronic cards, trying to dispurse it better. we're still working on that, to be honest, a week left before the election. we're still working on that. there will be representation on that unfortunately. we're eager not to go to the 2005 scenario where the whole communities are excluded. that is an issue as well for us. so then we're trying to get the right balance between true representation, versus security and safety. and it is not an easy formula. >> right there, yeah. >> mr. ambassador, thanks for your presentation. my name is rebecca smith. i'm a fellow here at csis. this is maybe falling on --

following on to john's reference how the media treats iraq, covers iraq negatively. my impression is that there is the sentiment in the united states, strong desire to see iraq succeed. and, americans may feel some responsibility for success in iraq, understanding that we pulled back too on our responsibility and yet we spent a decade there and we want to know it was worth it, both for u.s. objectives and for iraqis themselves. so i guess i would ask you, what is, was it worth it to you to have the u.s. intervention? was it worth it to the average iraqi citizen? what are the benefits that iraqis may experience now despite all the challenges that came with intervention? . .